Proceedings of the ASME 2022 13th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
Challenging Inspection Methodologies and Benefits – Recommended Scenarios for UT, MFL, and Robotics
Mick Collins Rod Lee
Intero Integrity Services Intero Integrity Services
Houston, TX Toronto, ON
ABSTRACT
As pipeline and energy storage infrastructure worldwide
continues to age, viable assessment options for critical assets are
becoming increasingly important to ensure the stable delivery of
energy. Many assets are complex and require creative inspection
solutions.
This paper discusses robotic inspection technologies for
pipelines and storage tanks that are challenging to inspect with
traditional methods. We will provide an overview of the
following:
 A pipeline inspection project in South Korea using
robotic Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection
technology. This unique MFL crawler technology can
operate within a flowing gas environment, capable of
crawling wirelessly into and out of a hot tap. The system
has a full array of high-resolution MFL sensors, a live
feed high-definition camera, and laser deformation
detection.
 A multi-tank inspection program in the USA using
robotic technology with ultrasonic (UT) sensors. This
system can inspect a tank floor while the tank remains in
service.
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-88267
Calvin Vasileff Michael Kobelak
Intero Integrity Services Intero Integrity Services
Edmonton, AB Toronto, ON
These projects and their unique challenges will be discussed
to illustrate the importance of deploying the right technology for
specific applications. We will also demonstrate that utilizing these
systems reduced the overall engineering costs associated with
traditional inspection technologies. Additionally, the benefits and
values from understanding the integrity conditions of these critical
elements of energy infrastructure will be shared to provide
guidance on selecting appropriate inspection methods to acquire
the breadth and quality of data that can assist operators in making
informed decisions for their asset integrity programs. This ensures
more reliable energy distribution, reduces environmental impact,
and improves safety.
Operators should consider the type of inspection technology
that will not only meet regulatory standards but provide all
information required to contribute to a well-rounded asset integrity
maintenance program. Inspection of those assets is key to ensuring
that pre-emptive maintenance is possible, and the costs associated
with adverse events avoided.
1 © 2022 by ASME
1. INTRODUCTION
As pipeline and energy storage infrastructure worldwide
continues to age, viable assessment options for critical assets are
becoming increasingly important to ensure the stable delivery of
energy. Many assets are complex and require creative inspection
solutions.
This paper discusses robotic and free-swimming inspection
technologies for pipelines and storage tanks that are challenging
to inspect with traditional methods.
These projects and their unique challenges will be discussed
to illustrate the importance of deploying the right technology for
specific applications. We will also demonstrate that utilizing these
systems reduced the overall engineering costs associated with
traditional inspection technologies. Additionally, the benefits and
values from understanding the integrity conditions of these critical
elements of energy infrastructure will be shared to provide
guidance on selecting appropriate inspection methods to acquire
the breadth and quality of data that can assist operators in making
informed decisions for their asset integrity programs. This ensures
more reliable energy distribution, reduces environmental impact,
and improves safety.
Operators should consider the type of inspection technology
that will not only meet regulatory standards but provide all
information required to contribute to a well-rounded asset integrity
maintenance program. Inspection of those assets is key to ensuring
that pre-emptive maintenance is possible, and the costs associated
with adverse events avoided.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This paper discusses robotic inspection technologies for
pipelines and storage tanks that are challenging to inspect with
traditional methods. We will provide an overview of the
following:
 A pipeline inspection project in South Korea using
robotic Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection
technology. This unique MFL crawler technology can
operate within a flowing gas environment, capable of
crawling wirelessly into and out of a hot tap. The system
has a full array of high-resolution MFL sensors, a live
feed high-definition camera, and laser deformation
detection.
 A multi-tank inspection program in the USA using
robotic technology with ultrasonic (UT) sensors. This
system can inspect a tank floor while the tank remains in
service.
2.1 Pipe Explorer MFL Robotic Inspection:
District Water Heating 24-inch Pipeline, South
Korea
The asset owner operates a network of water heating pipes
located in Seoul, South Korea that transports steam to the
surrounding area. The pipe segment of interest was 24 inches in
diameter with a nominal wall thickness of 8.7 mm. The pipeline
typically transports steam at 120°C and has a Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) of 16 bar. This pipe
network was constructed in the early 1990s. This is the first time
in the history of this network that the pipe was comprehensively
assessed by inline inspection. Winter temperatures in South Korea
can be harsh, commonly dipping down to -12°C. Maintaining the
integrity of this pipe network is critical for commercial and
residential end users to receive much-needed heating during cold
winter months.
2.1.1 The Challenge
After internal discussions, the operator of the network
decided to perform a comprehensive internal inline inspection on
a section of the pipeline network to understand integrity conditions
and identify potential threats that may jeopardize safe operation of
the pipe network. Other assessment methods such as Direct
Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) surveys, hydro-testing, or
direct examination did not meet their desired data requirements or
were shown to be cost-prohibitive.
Operators use DCVG surveys to detect stray currents in
surrounding soil propagated through compromised pipeline
coating (e.g. cracks, disbondment, general degradation). This
method effectively screens coating degradation but does not
provide substantial information regarding carbon steel pipeline
integrity. Best practices involve excavating areas of detected stray
current and directly assessing the pipeline and coating.
Hydro-testing, on the other hand, can indicate immediate
pipeline integrity concerns. The process involves isolating the
pipeline segment and pumping in water. The testing company
increases and monitors the water pressure above the pipeline
MAOP for several hours. If the pressure remains constant for a
prescribed duration, the pipeline passes the hydro test. If the
pipeline pressure descends below a threshold amount, the pipeline
fails the hydrotest. The hydro-testing process also subjects the pipe
to a stress level that exceeds the typical operating condition of the
pipe.
Direct examination of pipes in heavily urban and built-up
environments typically involves excavating through concrete
and/or asphalt roads. The complexity is exacerbated by
permitting/road moratoriums, active 24-hour traffic control, and
finally, remediation of the urban infrastructure. The associated
costs and environmental impact of evaluating the pipes with direct
examination are an order-of-magnitude above that of inline
inspection. With inline inspection, a limited number of
excavations allow the inspection of long stretches of pipe,
significantly reducing the aforementioned challenges.
The operator ultimately decided that DCVG surveys and
hydro-testing did not provide adequate integrity information to
assess the potential impact of high-temperature steam on the pipes.
The potential option to excavate several thousand feet of pipe for
direct examination could yield adequate data, but the operator
determined this method was not economically feasible as well as
significantly burdensome to the environment.
In-Line-Inspection (ILI), however, allows the operator to
gather comprehensive integrity data suitable for monitoring
potential integrity effects imposed by the steam and water. The
construction features of this pipe do not allow for free-swimming
or tethered ILI solutions, as the 24-inch pipe segment includes
2 © 2022 by ASME
mitered and short radius elbows/bends, and multiple elevation
changes. Intero's Pipe Explorer robotic ILI crawler fit the
operational constraints. The robots are wireless and therefore not
subject to cumulative bend angle limitations imposed by a tether.
The highly articulate robot geometry allows for the navigation of
short radius elbows and up to 90° miter bends which can prove
challenging or impossible for most smart pigs. As the robots are
self-propelled, data degrading speed excursions are eliminated
even when negotiating challenging bend groups. Lastly, no costly
permanent modifications were required in contrast to that required
for free swimming ILI. For these reasons, the operator selected the
Pipe Explorer for the integrity assessment of this 24-inch pipeline
segment.
2.1.2 The Technology: Pipe Explorer Robotic ILI
Intero's Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection division
(formerly Pipetel) has operated the fleet of Pipe Explorer robotic
crawlers since 2011. These robots operate tetherlessly, are self-
propelled and bidirectional, and can launch and receive from a
single size-on-size hot tap fitting.
FIGURE 1: THE ANATOMY OF A PIPE EXPLORER ROBOT
Pipe Explorer robots retain similar anatomy across the fleet
and can inspect pipelines from 6 through 36 inches in diameter.
The center of the robot carries the high resolution MFL sensors.
This sensor body collapses and de-magnetizes to allow for the
negotiation of challenging bends and mechanical features,
including 90° miter bends and unbarred tees. The noses, located
on the front and rear of the robot, transmit real-time video data to
the operator as well as capture deformation data with the Laser
Deformation System (LDS). The drive modules expand and
contract to push against the pipe wall and create traction for the
robot to drive upstream or downstream in the pipe. The steer
modules also actively roll and pitch, to accommodate challenging
bend groups and mechanical features.
Rechargeable batteries power the Pipe Explorer robots,
which can inspect to a range of 475 to 600 meters prior to returning
to the launch location. When inspecting from point-to-point (for
example, hot-tap fitting to hot-tap fitting), the robot inspection
range is increased to 800 meters.
The robots use wireless technology for data transmission,
and are self-powered, therefore allowing methodical navigation of
almost any bend angles and mechanical features while inspecting
pipelines. Additionally, the sampling frequency of the Pipe
Explorer results in a data measurement every 2 mm.
2.1.3 Use Cases and Limitations: Pipe Explorer
Robotic ILI
The robotic Pipe Explorer facilitates ILI in established urban
environments where pipeline conditions tend to be most
challenging. Urban pipelines typically include a myriad of bend
groups to avoid other underground infrastructure such as sewers,
electrical conduits, and even subway tunnels.
The robots wirelessly transmit a live video stream of the
pipeline during inspection. This allows for the discovery of
unknown pipeline installations including those prohibitive for
free-swimming or tether ILI such as drips, undersized valves,
backing rings/chill rings, and even icicles on girth welds, to name
a few.
Pipe Explorer robots can enter and exit the pipe from a single
location, and under live pressure and flow conditions. This allows
for minimally invasive inspections of critical infrastructure such
as casings, railway/highway crossings, rivers, and HDD segments.
The Pipe Explorer robots, although very capable, are not
infallible and present some limitations including inspection range.
The inspection distances are battery and wireless communication
limited. This is mitigated through in-line charging technology
available for Pipe Explorer, if necessary, but additional small
excavations and 2-inch fitting installations are required.
The robots can inspect in live gas pressure and flow, with a
ceiling of 52 bar. The robots are also not liquid proof, meaning
liquid pipes need to be displaced of product and dried prior to
inspection, as was necessary for this project.
The robots house an axial MFL sensor which must saturate
the pipe wall to achieve desired sizing specifications (general
corrosion at ±10% with 80% confidence). The maximum wall
thickness varies by diameter with NPS20 through NPS36 capable
of saturating a wall thickness up to 19.1mm.
Lastly, the robots are self-propelled at a constant speed of
0.1m/s which allows for ideal data collection, but extends the run
time, especially in longer projects.
2.1.4 Project Preparation
The pipeline operator decided to inspect a continuous 220
meters of 24-inch pipe that was considered a critical network
segment. The pipe segment was first isolated with existing valves
and the water drained. A foam pig (see Figure 2) was run through
the segment to remove any residual liquid. This was completed
using a foam pig rated temporary launcher and receiver installed
at both ends of the pipe segment. Compressed air was used to
propel the foam pig through the pipe.
3 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 2: FOAM PIGS USED FOR DISPLACING LIQUID FROM
THE 24-INCH PIPE
The robotic inline inspection only required one excavation
for entry and exit as shown in Figure 3. This allowed for the
immediate remediation of the second excavation used for the foam
pig passage. Prior to the work, local authorities approved a permit
to facilitate the excavations since the pipeline traversed the core of
a major city.
FIGURE 3: INSPECTION SCHEMATIC FOR A 220-METER
ROBOTIC INSPECTION
2.1.5 The Project
Intero completed the single Pipe Explorer inspection for the
pipeline operator in the summer of 2021. The pipeline operator
removed a section of the pipe to facilitate alignment of the Pipe
Explorer with the pipe. Figure 4 shows the entry and exit site with
Pipe Explorer aligned with the opening of the pipe. Figure 5 is a
schematic illustrating such a setup.
Once the pipeline operator removed the pipe cap from the
opening, the lifting crew aligned the robot and tray with the pipe
so that the robot could be driven into the pipe. Once inside, the
robot drove through the initial segment of pipe including elbows
and a vertical segment before reaching the desired start of the
inspection. The MFL sensor was then deployed and magnetized to
collect MFL data, along with LDS data and video data. An Intero
operator controlled the Pipe Explorer robot with real-time access
to the robot systems including data acquisition, odometry, robot
health, battery life, and a live video stream. Once the robot reached
the inspection limit (based on odometry and feature
identification), the MFL sensor was rotated to collect an optional
redundant data set. The Pipe Explorer robot then returned to the
insertion location and was retrieved from the opening.
FIGURE 4: THE PIPE EXPLORER BEING ALIGNED TO THE
24-INCH PIPE
FIGURE 5: THE PIPE EXPLORER BEING ALIGNED TO THE 24
INCH PIPE
2.1.5 Reporting
Intero submitted the MFL and LDS data coverage reports to
the pipeline operator within several hours of completing the
inspection. Data sets were 100% and 98% respectively for MFL
and LDS through the 220 meters of pipe. Intero subsequently
provided preliminary and final reports depicting the integrity
conditions of this pipe. Metal loss indications and dents with
varying severity were identified, and the pipeline geometry and
installations were visually confirmed and correlated to existing
pipeline records. With this information, the pipeline operator can
plan and structure a repair program by prioritizing the most severe
findings. Following this first inspection, the pipeline operator can
also carry out future assessments using Pipe Explorer on the rest
of the water heating pipe network according to the risk profile of
its network of pipes.
2.2 A Multi-Tank Inspection Program In 2021,
USA Using Robotic Technology with UT Sensors
Managing corrosion integrity for tanks and associated
pipelines is challenging and costly. In order to inspect tank floors,
the tank's hydrocarbons or chemicals are usually emptied from the
tank. This results in the tank being out-of-service for an extended
4 © 2022 by ASME
period of time. In addition to the monetary costs, there is also a
significantly increased safety risk to operators entering the tank.
The associated piping for transferring hydrocarbons and
chemicals in and out of the storage tanks is also an integrity risk.
In addition, the delivery lines are not designed for traditional ILI
tools, often causing expensive modifications prior to ILI
inspection. The following outlines the in-service inspection of five
tanks located in Colorado and New Mexico utilizing the robotic
Intero Tank Explorer.
shown in Figure 7. In principle, areas behind a fixed structure
cannot be inspected.
Cleanliness is a significant factor for any type of inspection,
and in the case of this project, the tanks had a few inches of debris
coating the tank floor. However, the debris was permeable by the
sensors in this case, and the robot sensors had no issues penetrating
through to the tank floor. The same, however, can not be said for
crude oil storage tanks. Sludge deposits can sometimes easily
measure over 6 feet, making a robotic inspection impossible.

2.2.1 The Challenge

Recent developments in robotic technology have allowed
operators to extend the service of aboveground storage tanks, in
adherence with regulations, before taking the tank out of service.
This extends the uptime of tanks and reduces costs and safety risk.
Improved electronics over the last several years have also
enhanced tank floor inspections. Improved Ultrasonic Technology
(UT) inspection methods address storage tank integrity monitoring
and assessment without removing tanks from service. By
acquiring large amounts of high-density UT data and evaluating
with readily available analysis tools, inspectors can now provide
tank owners and regulators with insight into the integrity of
Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) floors not otherwise available.
In-service robotic inspection of tank floors is now readily FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE OF TANK INSPECTION LIMITATIONS
accepted by the industry. Taking a tank out of service can be The tanks in question had to remain in service as they provide
costly, including downtime, safety risk, and associated labor and diesel fuel to an emergency backup power generation plant and
rental costs for transferring the tank product. Also, in-service tank could be activated at very short notice. The in-service Tank
inspection can assist operators in planning future outage time, Explorer 350 robot (Figure 8) was determined the best option due
material, and manpower resources. to the size and characteristics of the tanks.

2.2.2 The Project

In September of 2021, Intero performed in-service tank
inspections of five tanks in remote locations across Colorado and
New Mexico. The tanks ranged in size, as detailed below.

Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Tank 4 Tank 5

Diameter
102 47 89 89 106
(feet)
Height
48 40 32 32 24
(feet)
Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Roof Type Cone Cone Cone Cone Cone

Product Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel

FIGURE 6: TANK DIMENSIONS FIGURE 8: TANK EXPLORER 350

Intero engineers assess tank drawings during the pre-
engineering assessment phase so that the Intero operator clearly
understands obstacles to avoid during the in-service inspection
phase. In addition, the robot has a real-time, live camera feed to
enable safe maneuvering of the equipment. In general, it is not
possible for the robot to reach/cover 100% of the tank bottom
during the inspection. Typical areas that won't be covered are
Intero field technicians require approximately four hours to
set up and configure the Tank Explorer robot and ensure all UT
sensors are operational and the tractor is fully functional. The
robot is powered and controlled via an umbilical tube that houses
several flotation devices to obtain buoyancy and reduce drag on
the robot.

5 © 2022 by ASME
 Once the robot is situated on the tank's roof (Figure 9), a
tripod is deployed to lower the Tank Explorer to the tank floor.
The operator then runs further tests to ensure all onboard systems
are operational. At this point, the inspection phase begins and
usually takes four to eight hours, dependent upon the complexity
of any tank floor obstructions.
FIGURE 9: LIFTING THE TANK EXPLORER 350 AND FLOATERS
ONTO THE TANK ROOF.
2.2.3 Reporting
Extreme value analysis (EVA)1 is a statistical tool to estimate
the likelihood of the occurrence of extreme values based on
observed/measured data. As stated by API 575 (chapter 8.4.4), this
is an accepted practice for assessing the minimum remaining metal
thickness of the tank bottom.
The number of measurements taken for a statistical sampling
will depend on the size of the tank and the degree of expected soil-
side corrosion. Typically, 0.2% to 10% of the bottom should be
scanned for a representative evaluation used for inspection data
known as partial coverage inspection (PCI) where access, cost, or
other limitations result in an incomplete dataset. In the case of this
particular project, the robot scanned on average 15% of the tank
floor in each tank.
In PCI, EVA can estimate the most significant defect that can
be expected. Due to time, internal tank obstructions, and cost; UT
inspection of 100% of the tank floor is not feasible. Most
inspections measure floor thickness over a well-distributed
percentage of the floor and then estimate minimum floor thickness
using EVA. Some tank owners also use EVA statistics to evaluate
out-of-service floor UT data following MFL scans. Presuming the
inspection plan meets the requirements for the application of EVA,
data needs only be collected from a small percentage of the tank
floor.
API 575 and API 650 agree this method has been validated
and that there is no quantifiable difference in determining the
remaining life for tank floor inspection as long as the data
collected is distributed among all the navigable tank floor plates.
Results of field tests and more than 20 independently monitored
validation studies demonstrate that a small population sample of
the tank floor can provide satisfactory results.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the water heating pipeline in South Korea, ILI was
determined to be the most suitable method for assessing potential
integrity issues. Due to features of the network including
numerous elbows, bends, and elevation changes – the self-
propelled, robotic Pipe Explorer was determined to be the best
assessment tool for this use case. The water was able to be drained
from the pipe segment prior to inspection and the Pipe Explorer
only required a temporary launcher/receiver to be installed,
requiring minimal excavations in the core of a major city. The final
inspection results for this project can be utilized to develop a
detailed inspection and repair program for the future, with
comprehensive data that can be compared with subsequent
inspections.
For the multi-tank UT inspection in the USA, an inspection
with Tank Explorer was deemed to be the most suitable. Because
the tanks provide fuel to an emergency backup power generation
plant, an in-service inspection was essential. This robotic
inspection was also determined to be the most cost-effective and
safe option for assessing integrity. Out-of-service tank inspection
is a costly, inefficient way to manage tank floor integrity. While
periodic out-of-service inspections are still needed, improvements
in tank robotics now allow for in-service, risk-based inspections.
Robotic tank inspection provides tank operators the ability to
minimize safety risks and optimize rehabilitation planning and
maintenance, thus mitigating risk concerns and aligning to
important commercial considerations. In-service robotic
inspections will limit the need for future out-of-service inspections
and provide necessary data for developing a comprehensive
integrity program. This proven technology can provide some
insight into the tank floor condition but does not replace an out-
of-service inspection as API dictates. However, combining both
methods can enable a much more effective risk-based inspection
program, assist in prioritizing when a full out-of-service
inspection should take place, and help with operational planning.
4. CONCLUSION
When choosing an inspection method, it is important to
consider asset features, the best technology for assessing the asset,
as well as access and egress complexities. By using the appropriate
asset integrity assessment method, asset owners can be confident
that they will get the best quality and most comprehensive data to
not only meet but exceed their integrity needs.
The application of robotics, in conjunction with sensors that
are known to be successful for particular types of inspections
allows for better control and more comprehensive data for asset
owners. The future of assessing asset integrity can only be further
expanded as robotic technologies continue to develop and are
applied to a wider range of inspection tools. This will increasingly
provide asset owners more comprehensive information, allowing
them to update asset integrity programs accordingly.
6 © 2022 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] Extreme value analysis (EVA) of inspection data and its
uncertainties, D. Benstock and F. Cegel; NDT and E International,
Volume 87, April 2017

7 © 2022 by ASME